POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

You asked for evidence. I gave you the evidence. Now you don't like this evidence because it mentions evils done by the immaculate ones. I don't see how the evidence that you post is better than that supplied by the Chicago Tribune or Newsweek I referred to.

You offered no more evidence than I did of your status as an extraterrestrial, which I extensively apprised you of in the post just above yours. You presented nothing, only gesturing at the existence of words written by Republicans; as usual, content is extraneous to belief. This approach instantly evaporates when one recalls that Democrats can write op-eds too.

You never described any evils of Democrats or acknowledged any evils of Republicans. This is the behavior of favoring Republicans. You should at least be forthright about what you're doing and defend yourself accordingly; that you cannot do so in the light of day does not entitle you to retreat to bare assertion.

Generally, your manner of debating is weird. You indulge in racist jokes to show that I'm a racist, and mention Ukraine in every post to show that I'm derailing the thread. Using Russian four-letter words is also called to show that I am a foul-mouthed person? What next? Praising Trump to show that I'm a Republican?

I tried to keep it as simple as possible; I'm sorry to hear you were nevertheless confused. The purpose of invoking relatable forms of transgression or deception was to show you what you were doing exactly but in a way that would allow you to grasp the fallacies across contexts. These are empathetic techniques used to teach morality to small children. Unfortunately you really are absorbed enough in your navel to miss the point.

By your hysterics you evade responding to the challenge you dared me with. I came up with at least a semblance of steps to be taken to ensure the unity of your country.

I explained why those were no such thing, and how to even generate such suggestions required a fatally-impoverished knowledge of America and the world. You never responded, as you never responded to most of the inconvenient facts I or others mentioned. Instead of playing a Trump in miniature, flooding the zone with dozens of falsehoods and derangements and multiplying new ones exponentially when confronted over any one, you should do the honest, respectable, work yourself.

IN WHAT WAY? By low-profiling Republicans? By hue-and-crying those who voted for them? So far only bellicose rhetoric and insulting those who might dare to disgree with you.

You can begin by reading the entire thread for which that has been a subject. I can't do it for you.

In abstract, keeping the people who are creating disunity far from power is a good start, but that's too big-brained for you.

So I see that you belong to one of the fanatical camps spmelta wrote about (the progressive/SJW/anarchist or democratic-socialists which are opposed by the the reactionary/christian-nationalist/ militia group pseudo fascists on the right). And he also was right that both the above wings distort civil discourse and the ability to govern by deeming any concessions to the other as a betrayal to their 'side'.

Reality has a habit of intruding on fantasy, but for all our sakes I hope you never have to discover that.

How come Gil' is worthy of being a space alien and I am not?

I will now go off in a corner and sulk.

I don't know what you mean. If there's something you wanted to talk to me about, don't feel restrained. We can compartmentalize.

But the space alien analogy is not favorable to the subject, it was to demonstrate the shocking deficiency not merely of Gil's reasoning but of his whole posture toward communication. I could have invented any fake story to serve the same purpose, or abused a real one to insinuate something unsupportable from the text. I shouldn't have said my fake contribution was infinitely more informative than Gil's though, since a positive real number has a definite additive distance from zero.

So Gil could have done the halfway-honest thing and tried to use information or perspectives from the articles to argue whatever case he pleased - a case that would have been trivially debunkable, but still an aspirationally-coherent case. But Gil is a writer, not a reader, so he doesn't ever feel the need to refer to human words that were not conceived in his own mind. So at the end of this disgraceful episode he finally embraced the instincts of the archetypical 13-year-old Youtube troll.

Think about how much deference it must take to his notion of Republican stances, how much affective animus against all things liberal, to link 5 articles without commentary, or indeed any indication of awareness of their contents (or of the meta-idea that textual content may have import toward arguments), and attribute that as a case for treating Democrats with disdain and alarm, or for unfailingly deflecting all criticisms of Republicans.

For Gilrandir, the mere existence of an anti-Democrat op-ed is sufficient to implicitly refute half the Backroom content of the past 4 years alone. To say nothing of a casual perusal of reports on current events.

(Gil appreciating Trump's cogent argument for why Democrats are the REAL bad guys)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any member who could post their way into such a situation should be treated as a complete joke absent any tangible desire to improve. When Gil writes like this ipse dixit, while steadfastly refusing to treat the perspectives or information we put forth as deserving of consideration, it is nothing less than an expression of his absolute contempt for us as people. No way does that go unaddressed. I've tried to seek out the right measure of austerity in correcting Gil, but when a person relentlessly asserts their inferiority to you, trust at last departs from the presumption of communicative peerhood.



To clear up any confusion, here is a basic sample format for "argument with evidence."

Thesis: Republicans from top to bottom have abandoned democracy, and that is dangerous for the country.

Body Section 1: Here's what the Republicans believe and are doing, and why it is important and bad.

Body Section 2: Here's the historical context that leads us to think that these beliefs and behaviors are durable, logically-connected, and on a predictable course.

Body Section 3: Here's the contrast to Democrats' behaviors and attitudes.

Conclusion: Because Republicans are X and have been Y, whereas Democrats are and have been Z, the implications are...


For everyone who quit before high school (though these concepts are taught as early as primary school). It doesn't have to be in essay format - no one here does that - but basic elements of reasoning ought to be present.